Originally posted by kindred
One of the reasons they are promoting HD is simply because TFT LCD tv's are all the rage and frankly they suck at SD.

Not true. SD just sucks for them, because it’s low-resolution and interlaced. So depending on how the TV handles it, you either something vaguely
resembling 240p at 60fps, or an ugly blended 480p at 30fps. Some sets have better electronics than others.

Plus LCD's also have a limited viewing angle.

Right, but that doesn’t really say anything on the subject at hand.

I got a 19" TFT LCD for xmas as my old 14" Sony Wega CRT TV portable which I've had for 10 years is on it's way out. It's supposed to be a
good TFT in regards to all the good reviews it got. Anyway, after setting up my TFT, all I can say is that CRT's rule. LCD picture Quality is
laughable in comparison. I tried analogue tv first and the picture quality was horrendous. I then tried freeview digital and the picture was still
blurry and pixelated. I also tried a dvd and that wasn't any better either. My Sony Wega CRT excels at all three. There's no competition. This TFT
LCD TV is going back to the shop and I'll shall shop around for a new CRT TV instead. LCD TV'S seem more like a step backwards in terms of picture
quality.

Anyone thinking of buying a new TV is better off buying a CRT TV or a plasma TV if you have deep pockets.

That isn’t sound advice.

Like I alluded to above, some sets just upsample SD better than others. Saying that LCDs suck at SD because of how an LCD you tried out performed is
not very fair.

As for blu-ray, the price is a complete rip off and doesn't justify the slightly better picture and storage space. No way am I splashing out
£500. I'll wait until there around £50 before I consider buying one.

You and everybody else.

Like DVD before them, Blu-Ray and HD-DVD are going to get cheaper over the next couple of years.

for starters, it is my understanding that pretty much all film since the 70s or 80's has been larger than the screen intended to be viewed from by a
long shot. cameras shoot in mosiac, no screen produces mosaic pictures, so it had to be scaled just to go to vhs.

I dont know, but what i am going to do is ask MAX420. If none of you know who that is then you have not researched your HD enough. MovieCentral
listens to him, i suggest you do to, because video capturing and encoding is something not to many people know a whole lot about.

Not only do you not care what you’re paid for your work, but you don’t want to take credit for it either. Hallmarks of a nobility.

You seem to miss the fact that downloaders buy more than people who dont download.

Oh, that’s a fact, is it?

Where did you glean that “fact”?

Theres no negative effect at all.

There are significant negative repurcussions. Let’s start with the industry implementing more and more copy-protection on their media, which hurts
innocent people when it renders said media unplayable on their equipment, or worse yet, drives their equipment to an early death.

Let me guess, you probably think 1 download = 1 lost sale too?

Obviously not, but obviously very often someone may have bought a DVD or CD if they couldn’t find a downloadable copy.

Originally posted by scientist
You are the one trying to morally justify why it's wrong.

Wanting actors to make money from their work is wrong?
Or is it wanting studios to make money from their investment is wrong?

You seemed to imply that artists don't get paid because people download movies and music.

While it isn’t directly true, indirectly it is. The studios don’t have bottomless pockets. Bootlegging hurts them, and it trickles down to the
artists.

Originally posted by kindred
What happened to those holographic discs that were mentioned at the end of 2006. Still no sign of them.

for starters, it is my understanding that pretty much all film since the 70s or 80's has been larger than the screen intended to be viewed from by a
long shot. cameras shoot in mosiac, no screen produces mosaic pictures, so it had to be scaled just to go to vhs.

That’s not quite it. I don’t know about this “mosaic” business.

Basically, movies’ original recordings are done on celluloid film. VHS copies of said film are limited to 240 lines of vertical resolution, and to
whatever horizontal resolution the production companies and the VCRs and the TV sets are capable of handling. So this is where the celluloid has to be
scaled down to 240 × some ambiguous analog resolution which is almost certainly lower than that of the original celluloid.

Jedi has a couple of problems. The most immediate one here is not having a definition of what “HD” is.

But HD does have a pretty specific definition. “HD” means a higher resolution than old 480-line CRT TVs.
So as long as a recording wasn’t originally mastered for TV or on TV equipment, you can call it HD almost regardless of its origin.

So are you saying that is long as they still have the original film captured by high end studio cameras, (technology probably ranged over the decades)
then you can release it in 720 or 1080, but you cant convert an actual vhs tape into a true 720 or 1080?

while i was typing this i talked to a friend who is very informed on this subject. all 35mm is capable of 720 and all the way to 4000 or even better.
so anything filmed in 35mm can be scanned to a high enough resolution.

the Op is right that old, old films cannot get the HD scan, but lets be real here, they are going to get a major upgrade from a technology, that
anyone who is familiar with will not be here much longer.

As a matter of fact blu-ray has more storage capacity, higher resolution and not to mention that it's killing HD-DVD in sales.

While it does have more storage capacity, higher resolution is not correct. In fact, higher resolution makes no sense in your argument because they
both can produce the same resolutions. Also, your statement regarding sales is skewed also. Bluray is NOT killing HD-DVD sales. Here is a fact for
you: HD DVD players now constitute 60 percent of all standalone high-definition players sold.

Market research company Music Programming Ltd (MPL) said 87% of its respondents who downloaded music admitted they bought albums after hearing tracks
through the internet.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf

There are significant negative repurcussions. Let’s start with the industry implementing more and more copy-protection on their media, which hurts
innocent people when it renders said media unplayable on their equipment, or worse yet, drives their equipment to an early death.

Thats the industry doing that, not the file sharers, in fact, DRM just drives people to get cracked copies of everything.

Originally posted by MurderSmurf
Obviously not, but obviously very often someone may have bought a DVD or CD if they couldn’t find a downloadable copy.

Quite the opposite, people buy the music after they have sampled it for free

Originally posted by scientist

While it isn’t directly true, indirectly it is. The studios don’t have bottomless pockets. Bootlegging hurts them, and it trickles down to the
artists.

Not really, artists make most of their money by touring and hardly get anything from cd sales unless they are Britney or Madonna and they arent
hurting for cash.

Originally posted by thehumbleone
You guys are delusional. Look at the base blu-ray has with the millions upon millions of Ps3 owners out there. I can attest to this as many of my
friends use blu-ray because of their ps3.

Sorry but you must be the delusional one since you forgot about all the X-box consoles which use HD-DVD.

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.